Duty weapon used in School Shooting

This is a discussion on Duty weapon used in School Shooting within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This week in Omaha we had a school shooting. A recent transfer student was suspended and he returned to the school and shot the assistant ...

Duty weapon used in School Shooting

This week in Omaha we had a school shooting. A recent transfer student was suspended and he returned to the school and shot the assistant principal who suspended him (for driving his car on the football field) killing her and also shot the principal who survived. He later committed suicide in his car away from the school.

Here's the kicker. He took and used his father's service Glock 22. The father is a Detective with the Omaha Police Department.

Apparently the shooter took the firearm from a closet, no locking devices or safes have been mentioned to inhibit his access to the firearm.

Yes, its horrible for all the families involved, but should the father be held accountable? So far no charges have been brought against him for his negligence. The father did not shoot the 2 administrators but he was negligent in securing his firearm.

As non-LEO if this happened with any of my pistols, say a nephew took one and killed someone, I am sure that I would be charged for my negligence and I don't like a double standard that this detective might get away with.

There was a case last year where a teenager successfully thwarted an armed robbery in his home while defending his younger sister & himself. The teenager used his father's duty rifle, shooting 1 suspect while another fled. The Father of the teenager is a LEO. The firearms were stored in a safe, but the teenager had access as granted by the father for just such an emergency.

There were no charges of child endangerment or negligent unsecured access to firearms against the father, even though the teenager used his father's DUTY rifle.

Therefore, both teenage sons had access to their father's duty weapon, but one committed a terrible crime and the other was a hero.

If the law is blind, then both fathers would be negligent no matter the outcome, due to access to the duty weapon.

Also, in either case this was not a negligent discharge, both teenage sons willfully opened fire with specific intent.

I reference negligent discharge, because of accidental shootings by kids with access to firearms that are unsecured.

I have no idea whether that LEO is a good person or not. Some kids turn out bad despite their upbringing & vice versa.

There was a case last year where a teenager successfully thwarted an armed robbery in his home while defending his younger sister & himself. The teenager used his father's duty rifle, shooting 1 suspect while another fled. The Father of the teenager is a LEO. The firearms were stored in a safe, but the teenager had access as granted by the father for just such an emergency.

There were no charges of child endangerment or negligent unsecured access to firearms against the father, even though the teenager used his father's DUTY rifle.

Therefore, both teenage sons had access to their father's duty weapon, but one committed a terrible crime and the other was a hero.

If the law is blind, then both fathers would be negligent no matter the outcome, due to access to the duty weapon.

Also, in either case this was not a negligent discharge, both teenage sons willfully opened fire with specific intent.

I reference negligent discharge, because of accidental shootings by kids with access to firearms that are unsecured.

I have no idea whether that LEO is a good person or not. Some kids turn out bad despite their upbringing & vice versa.

Just food for thought.

Nice post. Personal accountability has to come into play at some point. If the shooter lived would he face trial as an adult? Yes? Then the father is not to blame.

Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm. I think we'd have to know more to make this determination.

I do not think that everyone that doesn't have their guns locked up all the time is negligent.

There was a case last year where a teenager successfully thwarted an armed robbery in his home while defending his younger sister & himself. The teenager used his father's duty rifle, shooting 1 suspect while another fled. The Father of the teenager is a LEO. The firearms were stored in a safe, but the teenager had access as granted by the father for just such an emergency.

There were no charges of child endangerment or negligent unsecured access to firearms against the father, even though the teenager used his father's DUTY rifle.

Therefore, both teenage sons had access to their father's duty weapon, but one committed a terrible crime and the other was a hero.

If the law is blind, then both fathers would be negligent no matter the outcome, due to access to the duty weapon.

Also, in either case this was not a negligent discharge, both teenage sons willfully opened fire with specific intent.

I reference negligent discharge, because of accidental shootings by kids with access to firearms that are unsecured.

I have no idea whether that LEO is a good person or not. Some kids turn out bad despite their upbringing & vice versa.

Just food for thought.

That does shed a new light on the situation and is very thought provoking.

I vote No, for now. I don't know anything else about the case. Since the teen was driving, there may not be a statute against allowing access to to gun, due to age. I think some of these gun lock laws are ridiculous. LEO status should make no difference...

I didn't vote, I don't know enough about it. I generally don't support laws concerning firearms negligence in the home anyway. Focusing on prior restraints, instead of the actual harm inflicted during a violent crime, is not what a free society does.

I voted no for now as well. Wasn't the son 17? Now I know he can't buy or carry a handgun at that age legally, but IMHO he does know right from wrong and is accountable for his actions, not the father.

If there was an observable history of drug use, criminal behavior, emotional issues, mental issues or other behavioral problems (in addition to driving on the football field) where this type of action or something similiar could be predicted then the father should be held accountable.

On the other hand, if violent or self destructive behavior could not be reasonably predicted, no, he's suffering enough.

I said "no", you're going to keep a teenager out of your gun safe/closet if he is determined. This is not like a ten year old having access to an open firearm...this kid is like any other adult in the home.OMO